| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 15:35, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> A few points... |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 15:55, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 5 |
> > * Could cause problems if some of the security updates have newer deps that |
| 6 |
> > are otherwise not included in the stable tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Security updates should be back-ported if the deps can't be met... I |
| 9 |
> dont see how we can get around that... and call it stable... But that's |
| 10 |
> not an infrastructure matter, I agree.. But as soon as anything called |
| 11 |
> like stable is implemented we are going to have to discuss QA stuff.. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I was wondering what stable actually means, so I looked it up in the |
| 14 |
dictionary. Here's the definition I found most suitable to our purpose: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
3a. Consistently dependable; steadfast of purpose. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Now, I see nothing that implies that "dependable" means "can't upgrade." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What's your argument that makes backports superior to upgrades for bug |
| 21 |
fixes? Maybe I'm missing something. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Donnie |
Archives